I've been working as the Social Media Editor and a staff writer at Forbes since October 2011. Prior to that, I worked as a freelance writer and contributor here. On this blog, I focus on futurism, cutting edge technology, and breaking research. Follow me on Twitter - @thealexknapp. You can email me at aknapp@forbes.com

Anti-Neutrinos May Hold The Key To Solving Physics Mystery

An international experiment with anti-neutrinos may hold the key to solving one of the great mysteries of physics.

The classic question of cosmology – and, one might say, of philosophy – is “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

Perhaps only slightly behind that question, at least for physicists, is “Why is there matter rather than antimatter?”

Given physics as we understand it, there’s no reason for the Universe to exist at all – the Big Bang should have created an equal amount of matter and antimatter. Those particles should have then annihilated each other, leaving nothing but billions of photons and no other kinds of matter. (As though the god of Genesis had said, “Let there be light!” and stopped there.) Since this didn’t actually happen (as evidenced by the fact that we’re here), physicists have been testing competing theories to explain why the universe is comprised (as far as we can tell) almost entirely of matter rather than antimatter.

Now, though, physicists may have a clue as to where the difference lies. That’s thanks to the Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiment, an international collaboration between physicists in China and the U.S., in an experiment taking place at a nuclear reactor in China. The goal of the experiment is to help distinguish the difference between neutrinos and anti-neutrinos.

Both neutrinos and anti-neutrinos oscillate between different states that physicists called “flavors.” There are six parameters to the different flavors – three mass states and three mixing angles. (What’s behind these states are some very complicated mathematics, which Wikipedia has an overview of here.) All of the parameters were known prior to Daya Bay except one – the third mixing angle of neutrino oscillation. In their measurements, the physicists determined that this mixing angle was 8.8 degrees – give or take .8 degrees.

So why does this matter? Well, the fact that the mixing angle is greater than zero means that neutrinos and anti-neutrinos don’t oscillate in the same way. That suggests that it’s possible that neutrinos and anti-neutrinos operate using different physical laws. If that’s the case, then that provides physicists with a stepping stone for understanding why the universe is mostly made of matter.

“Physicists have put their last hope on the neutrino to explain the absence of anti-matter in the universe,” said team member Karsten Heeger in a statement.

Now that the third mixing angle has been established, these physicists and others can start moving on to other experiments to try to ascertain why the mixing angle is what it is. And from there they hope to eventually find a definitive answer to the mystery of matter.

“The neutrino community has been waiting for a long time for this parameter, which will be used for planning experiments for next decade and beyond,” said Heeger.

Update: Dr. Heeger offered this clarification in the comments below: “Strictly speaking, the goal of the Daya Bay experiment is not to “help distinguish the difference between neutrinos and anti-neutrinos”. The Daya Bay experiment has only measured the probability of anti-neutrino oscillations between different flavors using the anti-neutrinos from the nuclear power plant. Since we found the mixing angle to be non-zero the next generation of experiments can now go on to determine the possible differences between neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. Measuring a non-zero mixing angle was a pre-requisite.”

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Why does Forbes show its bias and purposely call the Creator the “god of Genesis” with a small “g”? Ah! Maybe this Person holds the “key to solving one of the great mysteries of physics.” You should leave open that possibility. To many of us scientists it makes much more sense.

Yes, I wish they would also stop telling the ‘Creator’ what can or cannot be done. I believe Hawking has determined that a ‘Creator’ cannot exist since before the ‘Big Bang’ time did not exist and He/She/? would not have had time to ‘think’. The number of ‘experts’ who further claim they would recognise a ‘Creator’ is truly amazing. In 1000 years time will anyone be able to recognise a DVD?

Hi Alex! It doesn’t make any difference if you have different religious beliefs. Just open your nearby handy dictionary, and it will show you that the God of the Bible should be spelled with a capital “G”. To intentionally do different shows a slam on millions of people in the English world.

Not to worry, Alex. Your article was a clean, concise overview of some extraordinarily complicated, if arcane, stuff (notwithstanding your citation link to Wikipedia… *groan*). Referencing by name a god of a given tribe or group of tribes of a given period requires proper noun capitalization, but the generic term “god,” itself, certainly should not be considered a proper noun. For example, I could write, “The god of the cult of Yahweh was quite interested in having men destroy every shrine of the goddess Asherah.”

Put another way, the “God of All Creation” (setting aside whether or not that be a materially factual reference) is most decidedly not the “god of Genesis,” regardless of how insistent, prayerful, and/or menacing are the modern-day worshippers of that masculine, appallingly violent god of a cluster of tribes in antiquity.

Bart, since I was just making a literary allusion, I thought it was disrespectful to capitalize. I’m sorry that you disagree – but in some respect, there’s no good way to do it without ruffling somebody’s feathers.

Alan, normally I cringe at Wikipedia, too, but it was the best resource I could find with all the math in one place without sending readers in 1,000 different directions. Fortunately, the external links page in that article provides good reading for those who want to dig deeper.

The gradual introduction of Office Automation did not take millions of years to dispose of the printed User Guides that were written in a foreign language as from what I can tell it was something that happened virtually overnight without exception. It was as if all of the Corporate Big Shots collided together at a Developer Conference and unanimously agreed in one extraordinary moment that putting up shelves was more humiliating than referring to their own printed scriptures.